Photo Credit: Turner Hunt, Vision Energy
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (18) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
January 12, 2009

Researcher Focuses on Reducing Turbulence in Large Wind Farms

by James E. Kloeppel, University of Illinois
Illinois, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

While harnessing more energy from the wind could help satisfy growing demands for electricity and reduce emissions of global-warming gases, turbulence from proposed wind farms could adversely affect the growth of crops in the surrounding countryside.

"If wind is to be a major player in global electrical production, however, we have to think in terms of even larger scales- of say, thousands of turbines per wind farm"

-- Somnath Baidya Roy, Professor, Atmospheric sciences, University of Illinois

Solutions to this, and other problems presented by wind farms — containing huge wind turbines, each standing taller than a 60-story building and having blades more than 300 feet long — can be found blowin' in the wind, a University of Illinois researcher said last month.

"By identifying better siting criteria, determining the optimum spacing between turbines, and designing more efficient rotors, we can minimize the harmful impacts of large wind farms," said Somnath Baidya Roy, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the U. of I. "Through careful planning and testing, we can avoid some of the worst pitfalls altogether."

Wind-power technology has steadily progressed from small to large wind farms that contain vast arrays of giant turbines plugged into existing power-distribution networks. In fact, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) expects that once the year has been tallied final numbers will reveal that more than 7,500 megawatts of wind energy capacity was installed in 2008.

A single wind farm in northwest Iowa, for example, has more than 600 wind turbines and provides power to more than 140,000 homes.

But that isn't enough, said Roy, and his research is focused on how to make larger and larger wind farms more efficient.

"If wind is to be a major player in global electrical production, however, we have to think in terms of even larger scales — of say, thousands of turbines per wind farm," Baidya Roy said. "Such a wind farm could replace ten coal-fired power plants, but with so many turbines, turbulence could generate huge problems."

By disrupting airflow to nearby turbines, turbulence can significantly reduce the efficiency of a wind farm. But turbulence produced by turbine rotors also can have a strong impact on local ground temperature and moisture content.

"Turbulence creates stronger mixing of heat and moisture, which causes the land surface to become warmer and drier," Baidya Roy said. "This change in local hydrometeorological conditions can affect the growth of crops within the wind farm."

One way to reduce the impact of turbulence is to better integrate the wind-energy generation process into the natural kinetic energy cycle.

In this cycle, solar energy heats Earth's surface and is converted into the kinetic energy of a moving air mass. Some of the wind's kinetic energy is lost as friction, as it passes over and around obstructions such as trees, houses and mountains. At a wind farm, some of the wind's kinetic energy is harvested and changed into mechanical energy by turning a turbine, and then into electrical energy that flows into power lines.

The first step in reducing the effects of turbulence on local hydrometeorological conditions is to identify regions around the world where wind energy is high and frictional dissipation also is high, Baidya Roy said. "Building wind farms in regions where there is already a lot of kinetic energy dissipation would help to minimize the intrusion to the natural kinetic energy cycle."

Although the tops of mountain ranges are regions with high winds and high surface friction, constructing wind farms on summits would be impractical or economically unfeasible. Researchers must therefore search for regions better suited for integration with the kinetic energy cycle.

Using the IRA25 dataset, a comprehensive collection of 25 years of data from surface meteorological stations, radiosondes and satellites, Baidya Roy is mapping the wind's frictional dissipation around the world. He is able to estimate how much wind is available at selected sites, and how much of the wind's kinetic energy is dissipated as friction at the surface.

His results show that eastern and central Africa, western Australia, eastern China, southern Argentina and Chile, northern Amazonia, the northeastern United States, and Greenland are ideal locations for siting low-impact wind farms. In these regions, a wind farm with 100 large wind turbines spaced about 1 kilometer apart can produce more than 10 MW of electricity.

In related work, Baidya Roy also is studying ways to reduce the effects of rotor-generated turbulence on nearby wind turbines. As wind passes through a turbine, some of the energy creates a disruption much like that created by a moving boat. This disruption can affect the efficiency of a wind farm.

Using models, Baidya Roy is simulating the effects of different turbine spacing and patterns, and different rotor designs, on turbulence. The simulations show that reducing rotor-generated turbulence not only reduces the hydrometeorological impacts, but also increases power production by harnessing energy that was otherwise lost to turbulence.

"These studies suggest that while large wind farms can affect local hydrometeorology, there are smart engineering solutions that can significantly reduce those impacts."

James E. Kloeppel is the physical sciences editor at the University of Illinois News Bureau.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (18)
 
No image available
January 12, 2009
Who is saying turbulent winds, or changed wind flows and wakes from turbines is even a problem on the flora below? Are farmers complaining that crops are not growing as well below turbines? Are wild grasses being bent over too far? ;-) This local hydrometeorological research sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
Comment 1 of 18
No image available
January 12, 2009
Would placting a well designed tail structure to the back of the nacelle be able to reduce the turbulance?

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 2 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
As an electrician I am interested in better ways to produce electrical power'

That said, I personally think that power can be produced on a smaller scale to accomplish the goal of reducing pollution,

This is something that I would pursue. if time and money weren't short.

I can think of ways to do it.for the individual home owner.that would be cost effective.

Thank you for spurring my interest ,
Comment 3 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
If this study is purely based on measurements, it is utter rubish.

To get a 3D-picture of turbulence in the atmosphere, one has to run an advanced mesoscale numerical model!

It doesn't only depend on dissipation of kinetic energy at the surface, but also advection of turbulence, mountain gravity waves and so on. The picture is far more complex than outlined above.

Furthermore, 100 large wind turbines spaced about 1 kilometer apart can produce more than 100 MW (!!!) of electricity!
Comment 4 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
I thought wind turbines were utilising atmospheric turbulence, a.k.a. wind, not causing it. Will next we read about studies stating that solar panels produce sunlight, and geothermal plants generate heat deep inside the earth?
Comment 5 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
I guess one can look at different energy producing methods in all kinds of novel ways.

One can propose the idea that coal plants provide an important function, by reducing the amount of carbon sequestered in the earth.

Internal combusion engines help get rid of those nasty naturally occuring oil seeps.

And wind turbines generate wind. OK, I'm convinced, sell me that bridge to Brooklyn.
Comment 6 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
Ah, numbers. So a 600 turbine plant can produce power for more than 140,000 homes, it says. Now, that would be on a windy summer night, assuming 2 MW peak output turbines, when the demand for each home was less than 850 watts (the fridge, and freezer running, with the AC, TV, and appliances off)? Mind you on the nice summer days when the air conditioners are humming and the home demands are about 2500 watts, and the winds turn calm, (Oh, Oh, our output is down below 10% again, like it was on >50% of the 100 summer days during peak hour in Ontario for two years in a row, even for widely separated wind farms) so we can supply less than 5,000 homes. Crank up the back up generators again. But wait, it promised right there in the "News" that we could "replace" those back up generators (coal or whatever). Sorry about that for the rest of you 135,000 customers. Check with us tomorrow evening, will you? You don't mind, do you?
Comment 7 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
As a farmer, I want the wind reduced at ground level. The turbines would do me a service. Any tree line or wind stop that doesn't shade the crop is a plus out in the fields where wind machines are commonly sited.
Is this just some theorist blowing smoke?
Comment 8 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
I am wondering about laminar flow and this author's hint that a certain
amount of living plant material might be acceptable for a wind farm.
Commercial Windfarm Horticulture anyone?

The power companies have, since their inception, fought vegetation from periodic tree trimming all the way to total soil sterilization. This is just another logical step in a long battle.

Eventually, someone may realize that a wind-biomass electrical power plant may have advantages over the quick build and sell wind farm.
Comment 9 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
Awea says that 7,500 of wind energy capacity was installed in 2008 but forgot to mention that in reality the average production will be around 1500 to 200Mw
and most of that during the night when it is not needed.
600 wind turbines will not supply to140,000 homes -in fact it will not supply power to any homes unless it is connected directly to it . But, as Mr Palmer has already pointed out, if these 140,000 homes were supplied directly by these 600 wind turbines most of these homes would be without power most of the time and all of them a lot of the time.
There are almost 100,000 wind turbines in service around the world yet not one coal fired station has been closed down because of wind power . Why?
the answer is quite simple - nowhere in the world does the wind blow all of the time and we prefer our lights to come on when it gets dark.
Lets face it we cannot control the wind therefore wind turbines simply are not even a part of the answer -our taxes are better spent on more reliable alternatives. see www.whitherindustrialwindpower.wordpress.com/
Comment 10 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
As a wind energy engineer and industry professional, I'm appalled that Renewable Energy World would publish such rubbish. There is no evidence to suggest that wind farms (regardless of their size) make any impact on the moisture content of local soils or disrupt the "natural kinetic energy cycle" of the earth. Simply put, the crop yield potential of a given area is NOT affected by the turbulence that is produced in the wake of an operating wind turbine.

The fact that this article made it to press is concerning to say the least (an editor actually approved this!?). Whatever confidence I once had in Renewable Energy World as a reputable industry news source is now completely gone.
Comment 11 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
Hey Tony Clark, if wind is so useless in your eyes, then how do you explain 7,500+ MW coming online in a year? And I'm so tired of people like you bringing up capacity factor like it's big secret. Coal plants operate at about 70% but just like wind they too are rated by their total MW size.
Comment 12 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
I fully agree with the above comment from "Disbeliever". It's inexcusable someone at RE-World actually read that article and decide to publish it as news. It's absolute rubbish.
Comment 13 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
Hey JB -where did I say 7,500+ Mw coming on line? I said 7,500Mw was installed.--big difference JB big difference.
Coal plants normally run as base power units at around 90% or more of their capacity however the output can be controlled at a lesser output if required .This is unlike wind power that produces only when the wind blows and only at certain speeds, 30% of it's capacity over one yr would be considered a real good wind turbine but even though a coal plant running at 70% would produce
more then two times the Mw per rated Mw it would be considered a poor generator.30% of 7500mw is2250mw 70% is 5050mw.
The coal plant power would be dispatchable and planned while the wind power will come and go with the wind and produce at it's best usually when it is not required . That's why large grids only plan for at max.10% of the rated capacity - it's not a big secret it's just reality.
Comment 14 of 18
No image available
January 14, 2009
Just to clear something up, turbulence is not the creation of wind, it is a change in wind speed and or direction. I do not know about specifics mentioned in this article, but as an environmental scientist with a degree in meteorology it certainly sounds feasible. There have been sound studies that point toward things like fallow fields and tree distribution within corn fields acting as a kicker for convectional storms. All unintended consequences need to be considered.
Comment 15 of 18
January 15, 2009
Human industrial progress is littered with 200 years of "unintended consequences". While it is intuitively logical that downwind turbulence will cause some "hydro-meteorlogical" effects, such as adiabatic condensation and vaporization; it is also logical that the effects will be trivial. However, if you attend a public hearing about wind farm siting you will find this issue on the list of NIMBYisms used by opponents. They claim effects up to 2 miles away, how do you PROVE them wrong? With valid scientific study.
Comment 16 of 18
No image available
January 21, 2009
It is hard to believe that we've "bought the wind farm" and overlooked vortex turbulence! How could they could ever possibly disrupt the flora in an area? But, take a moment and logically think this through. Here are literally scores of mega-watt, spinning "helicopter blades" on their sides!

I will put it in perspective for you. Take a 3'x3' house fan and turn it on High speed. Now, sit this blowing right next to your head, and try to go to sleep.

Don't stop there, with batteries, you take it with you, so it is always blowing toward your body 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end! Get the picture? Now tell me whether you, as a living being, would not be quickly disrupted and compromised by this activity?

We do not need to go through some million $ research procedure to see that this technology is disruptive, from beginning to end. Just because the swirling, chaotic vortexes being churned out cannot be seen, is like saying that your car doesn't pollute because you can't smell the exhaust gases while you drive!

It's all about the love of money, centralization and institutionalized control of the masses -to keep high-tension power line economy in action! You cannot get good fruit from a poison tree. Right? And where, once again, is the fruits of Man's greed showing up? In the destruction environment.

"Green" centralized mega-watt windpower generation? "Peace-time nuclear power?" and "peace-time rocketry?" They are all oxymorons.

The entire business of mega-watt, centralized energy-production has to be scrapped, to make way for empowering the individual to make their own energy from wind and solar.

Well, I won't just leave you in the lurch without giving to you a benign and decentralized wind-powered solution. Here is an invention which you can freely build and use. It is 3X more efficient, per size, than any spinning-bladed counterpart! http://darinselby.1hwy.com/whalestailworkings.html
Comment 17 of 18
No image available
February 10, 2009
Darin, the example in your rant is utterly misleading. Rather, the wind turbines are like you sitting in high wind, and using the fan _against_ the wind to get lower wind speed on your body. Besides, it would never be 24/7/365, as the wind doesn't blow that much.

As for your whale tail idea, if you want to build it really big, then you have to build the base extremely sturdy to be able to cope with the off-axis moments. Or am I missing something here? Do you have a power curve for an existing prototype?
The claim that it's 3x more efficient than a roughly 50% efficient spinning-bladed turbine is, frankly, hard to believe...

Best regards,
Gregor
Comment 18 of 18
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Rolls Battery Engineering KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Ferraz Shawmut Energy Storage Summit GoGreenSolar.com PennEnergy
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo